Friday, January 14, 2011

Formation of Company to Prosecute False Marking Claims does not Manipulate Venue

The court denied defendants' motion to transfer venue of plaintiff's qui tam false marking action. "Although [plaintiff] was incorporated three days before [it] filed its first false marking suit, [plaintiff] was not formed to manipulate venue. . . . There is no dispute that [plaintiff] was formed in anticipation of litigation, and its business model is solely to bring false marking lawsuits. But there is a difference between forming a company in an attempt to manipulate venue and forming a company in anticipation of litigation. . . . [Plaintiff's] president and employee has lived in the Eastern District of Texas for over a year. . . . Therefore, the Court will give some weight to the fact that [plaintiff] is incorporated in Texas and conducts all relevant operations in the Eastern District of Texas."

Navigation

Rubin Anders

About This Blog

reads every patent infringement litigation docket sheet in the US district courts every day. The posts you see here are a small sampling of the Docket Report...see every noteworthy event in current patent litigation, complete with free links to the underlying orders, by subscribing to the Docket Report daily newsletter.